In OTL William H. Crawford ran for President in 1824, against John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Henry Clay. Crawford ended up third in the electoral college. Some historians think that his chances at becoming President were hurt when he suffered a stroke in 1823, brought on by some medication he took. Let's say Crawford doesn't have that stroke. If Crawford does better in the general election, he can take some votes from Jackson. I could see him taking North Carolina from Jackson. How would this change things when the election goes into the House of Representatives?
WI: William H. Crawford Doesn't Have a Stroke
- Thread starter Emperor Shawn
- Start date
I think Crawford had a much better chance of getting elected in 1816--when he probably could have gotten the endorsement of the congressional Republican caucus if he wanted it--than he would have had in 1824 even if his health was good. By 1824, the caucus system was just too unpopular to impose its choice.
Even if Crawford had carried NC in 1824 he would have only 56 electoral votes to Adams' 84 and Jackson's (in this ATL) 84. He would therefore still be in third place and it is hard for me to see him winning in the House. He would have the backing of Van Buren and the states-rights "Old Republicans" but that's not enough. The kingmaker was Henry Clay, and while Clay liked Crawford personally, "considerable differences on matters of policy continued to divide them. Crawford represented the states' rights view and generally opposed federal support for internal improvements, thus further placing himself in opposition to Prince Hal. Several states of the Southeast looked to Crawford as their defense against the dangerous heresies of Mr. Clay..." https://books.google.com/books?id=_2diDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA96
Even if Crawford had carried NC in 1824 he would have only 56 electoral votes to Adams' 84 and Jackson's (in this ATL) 84. He would therefore still be in third place and it is hard for me to see him winning in the House. He would have the backing of Van Buren and the states-rights "Old Republicans" but that's not enough. The kingmaker was Henry Clay, and while Clay liked Crawford personally, "considerable differences on matters of policy continued to divide them. Crawford represented the states' rights view and generally opposed federal support for internal improvements, thus further placing himself in opposition to Prince Hal. Several states of the Southeast looked to Crawford as their defense against the dangerous heresies of Mr. Clay..." https://books.google.com/books?id=_2diDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA96
Without his stroke he would have done much better than just North Carolina, his support largely evaporated after the stroke but he still got a pretty solid amount of support even in the North.
But one thing Clay and Crawford could agree on was their mutual airline of Jackson and a stronger showing in the election might make Clay more inclined to support Crawford as a compromise candidate.
Interesting. So besides North Carolina, what other states do you think he could flip?
Did he have the cachet in ‘16 to defeat Monroe, though? IIRC Monroe was well known to be Madison’s preferred successor
Maybe have Monroe get a bit too friendly with the Tertium Quids (John Randolph & co), and the Republicans decide to go with a more loyal party man?
Monroe was pretty happy as Secretary of State, if Madison doesn't name him the heir apparent he may not seek it.
Reading Lynn W. Turner's chapter on "The Elections of 1816 and 1820" in Arthur M. Schelsinger, Jr., Fred L. Israel, and William P. Hansen (eds.), *History of American Presidential Elections 1789-1968* (1971) it really does appear that Crawford could have had the nomination if he had wanted it. (You have to remember that some Republicans were getting tired of the Virginia dynasty--after all, there were other states in the Union...)
p. 305: "The threat represented by William H. Crawford was serious. It served to remind citizens of another blemish in Monroe's record--namely, that he had listened for some time in 1808 to the siren song of revolt as piped by John Randolph and the other 'Quidites' against the dynastic succession of Madison. He could therefore hardly complain now that dissident Republicans in New York and the South were rallying behind the vigorous and younger Georgian. Sentiment for Crawford was so strong in the winter that those who yearned for harmony in the Republican ranks expressed alarm at 'the measures resorted to, to divide the friends of the late war.' One of Monroe's correspondents voiced the hope 'that you and William Crawford will be both so truly great, as not to suffer your friendships to be impaired thereby.'
"Perhaps there did exist such an element of true greatness in Crawford's composition, although more cynical observers were convinced that he was induced to withdraw from the race in 1816 by the promise of support for the succession in 1824. A Monroe supporter, Senator Abner Lacock of Pennsylvania, later admitted to a newspaper publisher that he had voluntarily called upon the Secretary of War in early March and asked him to renounce his candidacy. Lacock had argued for party loyalty but had also pointed out that Crawford was a young man with plenty of time for a later turn at the Presidency. The Georgian, Lacock reported, had replied that his own feelings would not permit him to oppose Monroe for office. Before the second caucus met on March 16, Senators Charles Tait and William Bibb of Georgia, friends of Crawford, spread the word that the Secretary of War could not run against so venerable a figure as the Secretary of State. This statement was a little condescending, perhaps, but capable of translation into a spirit of loyal and noble forbearance. Unfortunately, the friends of Crawford bungled the rest of the job. They were supposed to have attended the caucus, made a formal statement of Crawford's renunciation, voted for Monroe, and explained the whole heroic procedure in the Government press. Instead, they absented themselves from the caucus, which proceeded to nominate Monroe by 65 votes, a narrow majority of 11 over the 54 cast by stubborn Crawford partisans from New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky. Had all of the Georgian's supporters from among the twenty-two Republicans been present and voted, James Monroe might never have become President of the United States."
(You may note that Turner writes about the March 16 caucus as the "second caucus." On March 10, an unknown person posted an invitation to Republican members of Congress to meet on March 12 to make the necessary nominations. At the appointed time, only 58 of the 142 Republican members appeared. This was obviously too small a number to give approval to even a pre-determined choice, so Jeremiah Morrow of Ohio, chairman of the rump session, was persuaded to issue a more official call for a Republican caucus on March 16. Turner thinks the low attendance on March 12, while perhaps partly motivated by growing opposition to the whole caucus system, was primarily a matter of Monroe-ites failing to attend because they thought the caucus might nominate Crawford. "It would have been logical enough... for Monroe's adherents to have tried to avoid a showdown, and for Crawford's friends to take the lead by making the anonymous call for a caucus on March 12. Monroe's followers would have ignored the call, thus accounting for the poor attendance, but since their hands had been forced they would have attempted to rally all their strength for the second caucus. Its outcome confirms the reliability of this hypothesis. This is also the way the newspapers interpreted events." p. 303)
David T, that is very interesting. One wonders if Crawford would have presided over a similar “Era of Good Feelings” that Monroe did
Sorry to resurrect this threat, but I just thought of something. Let's say the election goes the way it did in OTL, with the election being decided in the House and Adams winning, the only real difference is that Crawford takes some electoral votes from Jackson. Here are some questions I have:
1. Will Jackson still be able to use the claim of a "Corrupt Bargain" against Adams? If Crawford is able to take NC and another Southern state from Jackson, Adams is the winner of the electoral vote.
2. Without the stroke, Crawford might live longer and generally be healthier. Will this mean Crawford is a more active political figure and how will this impact the political landscape of the era? Might Crawford become a major leader during the Nullification Crisis?
3. In OTL, Crawford's supporters joined Jackson against Adams, despite the two being enemies. If Crawford is more active and healthy, will his supporters still get behind Jackson, or will they form a third voting bloc lead by Crawford?
1. Will Jackson still be able to use the claim of a "Corrupt Bargain" against Adams? If Crawford is able to take NC and another Southern state from Jackson, Adams is the winner of the electoral vote.
2. Without the stroke, Crawford might live longer and generally be healthier. Will this mean Crawford is a more active political figure and how will this impact the political landscape of the era? Might Crawford become a major leader during the Nullification Crisis?
3. In OTL, Crawford's supporters joined Jackson against Adams, despite the two being enemies. If Crawford is more active and healthy, will his supporters still get behind Jackson, or will they form a third voting bloc lead by Crawford?
I created a hypothetical electoral map using 270toWin based off of this scenario:
https://i.imgur.com/F0oTbef.png
In addition to North Carolina, I gave Crawford South Carolina and an extra vote from Delaware. I also had Adams win New Jersey. In OTL, Jackson beat Adams in New Jersey by 2000 votes. I assumed that in this alternate timeline, Crawford would be able to take enough votes from Jackson to give Adams New Jersey. This puts Adams first in the Electoral College, followed by Crawford, and Jackson finishes third. Clay still gets fourth. Do you think I overestimated how well Crawford would've done if he didn't have a stroke or could he have done even better?
https://i.imgur.com/F0oTbef.png
In addition to North Carolina, I gave Crawford South Carolina and an extra vote from Delaware. I also had Adams win New Jersey. In OTL, Jackson beat Adams in New Jersey by 2000 votes. I assumed that in this alternate timeline, Crawford would be able to take enough votes from Jackson to give Adams New Jersey. This puts Adams first in the Electoral College, followed by Crawford, and Jackson finishes third. Clay still gets fourth. Do you think I overestimated how well Crawford would've done if he didn't have a stroke or could he have done even better?
It's genuinely hard to tell because so much of the country wrote him off after the stroke. He's also similar to many of the candidates on a lot of issues and would likely cannibalize votes from all three candidates. I doubt he could carry more states than what you predicted but he'd pull a lot more votes for sure.
Well would it be fair to assume that Crawford would steal more votes from Jackson, than from Adams and Clay? I know Crawford advocated for states' rights, which is why I gave him South Carolina.